(The one Biker who knows what Glass is couldn't make it out if his mother's basement because he's too hammered)
I have never met a bigot that I thought was encumbered by too much intelligence. I'm glad to see that my own bias' against retards that equate appearance (or hobby) to IQ hasn't been scuffed.
Agreed. Honestly, AFAIC if you're contributing to the conversation, even a little, there's no reason not to post your own links to your own site(s). It's the "posting just to advertise" that people hate.
That's kinda hard to do once the genie is out of the bottle and facts are on the ground. Take gay military service: sure, the next president is free to kick gays out of the military again, since Obama's weak-sauce "repeal" had no anti-discrimination language.
But the next president will have to work against a 4 year long record of gay service.
No, the next president will have to work against 20 years of recorded gay service. Bill Clinton enacted "don't ask, don't tell" back in the early 90's as a way to allow homosexuals to serve. After 20 years, and considering that the US Military has been complaining about the low IQ's of recent grads, they'll continue to accept anyone that'll do the job.
Weed is a different issue entirely. So far, we've had 8 years of Obama (more or less) not prosecuting, true enough, but we've also watched him flip flop on that very same topic at least twice. During his initial campaign he implied that he would push to legalize weed...as soon as he was in office he claimed that he just wanted to maintain the status quo. During his second election it didn't come up, but there have been quite a few petitions at Whitehouse.gov about it and so far the only official response from the WhiteHouse is that they "trust in the science that they already have", which means that they trust in the propaganda that was spouted in the 30's.
His decision to not prosecute patients (and to not prosecute Washington/Colorado residents) is totally at his discretion. When the Republicans are back in the white house (which I totally expect considering how poorly Obama has done), weed doesn't have a chance.
President Jeb Bush could also go back to persecuting marijuana users, but would still have to work against the fact on the ground that marijuana isn't a dangerous drug.
It's not about saving lives, it's about filling prisons. If it were about saving lives booze would be classified at a much higher risk than weed.
While I agree with the sentiment, I'm really glad that the Internet didn't go in this direction to begin with. Why? Well, it doesn't matter how much I'm paying for security if the NSA (or whoever else in the Government feels like taking a peek) can still read all of my shit.
Either that or they'd just merge the accounts...I've had this happen before I *think* with Google, but not certain. Regardless, they are under no obligation to remove your content...really the only decision that YOU get to make is whether or not you log in.
Soooo....I'm afraid that I must admit defeat or else become a Government employee. Since they aren't fans of pot smokers, I will tuck my tail between my legs and shamefully exit this thread:p
I was arguing that the USPS isn't a monopoly because 1) there are other businesses that provide the same service and 2) other businesses CAN provide the same service. If they don't, that's not the fault of the USPS. The USPS has no exclusivity for taking a letter from point A and taking it to point B...what they do have is a lot more Government oversight that prevents them from competing on the same level as the actual businesses that could provide the service. I do agree with you that the category of service is always changing and that nailing anything down according to those definitions is pretty point. The other side of my correction was that you stated they could "charge whatever they want", which is also completely false. If they could charge whatever they wanted they would not be having the financial problems that they've been having for the last 20 years. That's all - no more, no less. But since this entire discussion seems to be about a difference in opinion as to the definition of "monopoly", we can take a look at that:
the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.
"his likely motive was to protect his regional monopoly on furs"
Can we at least agree that what they are providing is a service as opposed to a commodity? Good.
As a SERVICE, what is it that the US Government provides to the USPS that is a barrier for entry for any other entity? From the definition, I don't see any barrier to entry...anyone with the drive and desire to provide a better service than the USPS is welcome to do so.
Are you trying to say “Monopolies” are a synonym for “Bloodthirsty pirates who are only interested in booty?” because that is not what monopoly means. There are a lot of monopolies out there that lose money.
No, actually, I was correcting you where you were wrong. Namely when you said "The USPS has a monopoly on letter delivery" - which is demonstrably false. You can send your letters via FedEx and UPS if you like. Also "and can charge whatever price they want", which is also demonstrably false since the USPS has to petition Congress in order to raise rates. I could have corrected you on this: "In areas where they don’t have a monopoly – like next day mail – they have to charge a lower “competitive” price to match FedEx, et. al." but figured I didn't need to bother...stamps cost the same price, regardless of what city/state in the US you're in.
Now, if you're talking specifically about "special pricing" for major companies, I know that this has historically been the case. Sears and Monky Wards catalogs, for example, used to cost the USPS an absolute fortune in shipping due to mass and weight. IIRC there were "special prices" for them because they were driving the economy - essentially, Government blessed. I don't see how the Netflix (or GameSpy) models are relevant in regards to that, as the circumstances as well as the difficulties in shipping are vastly different...apples to oranges. Did Netflix get special pricing? I don't know, but IIRC the last time the USPS was in front of Congress asking for money they had stated that one of the only reasons they were even able to CONTINUE doing their work was because of the amount of money they were getting from DVD rental services. I could be wrong on some of these points though - memory is a funny thing...
Case in point, USPS. In exchange for a monopoly they are heavily regulated. I am a free marketer and I think the USPS service does a decent job for the money. There are a lot of other cases out there like that.
I'm not sure what point you're actually trying to make here, but if you read the last paragraph of my last post you'll see that I agree with you on this point.
Reading the summary, but not the article, I got the impression it would be less. The USPS has a monopoly on letter delivery and can charge whatever price they want. In areas where they don’t have a monopoly – like next day mail – they have to charge a lower “competitive” price to match FedEx, et. al.
If this were even remotely true then the USPS going bankrupt a few years back is bullshit. Since they were in fact going bankrupt and since they had to get Congressional approval to raise their rates, I would say that calling them a "monopoly" is disingenuous at best. Their prices are fixed, their costs are not. They have an expectation to provide a service at a rate that is significantly lower than FedEx or UPS - this is what has been causing them so much grief in recent years. UPS and FedEx are making money hand over fist and still are able to come close to the price of USPS with far better service. If the USPS raises their rates, they lose even more money.
I'm no supporter of Government programs by and large, but the USPS is one of the most well designed Government programs in existence. If only we could have maintained that standard with literally ALL of the other Government programs, we wouldn't (as a country) be broke right now.
Been getting around 5 disks from Netflix a month for a few years (sometimes more, sometimes less - their streaming service makes it so that the DVD service isn't as critical for me). During that time I've gotten 1 broken disk - had a crack from the edge almost to the center. I returned it, notified Netflix on their site, and was sent an extra disk from my queue in compensation while they rushed me a new copy of the broken disk.
There have been a few times when I've gotten a disk that was badly scratched...but only a couple, definitely well under the 1% mark.
As far as the "gunk"...yeah, I've gotten disks with jelly on them and other things, but again, not frequently. Maybe 1 out of 20 disks? Not terrible IMO considering the volume of disks that they're supposed to process every day.
I wish I could figure out why all of the most staunch supporters of our Freedoms are all anonymous. Might it be because they are cowards, and that cowards are really REALLY good at leading from behind?
I'll say the same thing I ALWAYS say when one of you nutjobs decides to tell us all how to reclaim our Freedoms: You first. I will stand BESIDE the second batch of revolutionaries should our brethren actually decide to climb up off of their asses and fight for what they claim they want to fight for, but until that moment I am a Revolution of One, and I don't much care for those odds.
So by all means - stand up and do what you already know you should be doing. I'm right behind you.
The feds will flipflop on this as soon as Obama is out of office. Right now he's trying to save face and this is a really easy way for him to do it without having to spend more money. As soon as the new boss buys his way into office it'll be his (or hers, but really it'll be his) discretion to prosecute users in those states.
I hate getting into definitions - Agnostic, Athiest, Theist, and all the middle crap is annoying. That said: I'm very annoyed by true Athiests and here's why.
...waiting with baited breath...
In my mind, the true Athiests are the ones who don't believe in god and mock and attack anyone who says otherwise.
Then perhaps your mind should read a dictionary?
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. "he is a committed atheist"
I don't see anywhere there that requires preaching or coercion, which tells me that you're pissed off at Atheists because you want to use your own definition of "Atheist". That's like being pissed off at catfish because of all of their fur and incessant barking.
These people are on the exact same level as the theists who believe in god and attack and mock anyone who says otherwise.
Some are, yes, but that's like equating WBC with Christianity. (neither of which I support, I'm just illustrating a similar comparison)
This is why I equate Atheism with Theism.
Well, as long as you realize that you equating one with the other makes you "wrong". Words have definitions, dictionaries enumerate them. If you don't like the definition then act to get it changed, but you don't suddenly get to decide for the rest of the world what words mean.
The truth is, it's not religion or lack thereof that's the problem. It's the people who feel the need to jam their opinion on the subject down other peoples throats.
I agree, despite your hypocrisy.
This is the true reason that Athiests believe religion is the source of all evil, and it's the real reason Theists roll their eyes at athiest arguments on the matter: they're throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Based on the content I assume that you're not an Atheist, yet you'll deem to speak for us? Let me simplify this for you. I can't speak for all Atheists, obviously, but I can speak for myself.
Why do I believe that religion is "evil"? It's because spiritual leaders rely on various forms of deception to identify the "truth", even if (as you did above) it means re-defining words to mean what they WANT them to mean. In a nutshell: I respect honesty too much to be a supporter of religion. Find me an honest religion and then we can talk about my potential conversion from Atheism.
That said, the regular old Athiests - just like the regular old Theists and regular old Agnostics - are in no way a problem. These are the people who have their own opinion and allow others to have a separate opinion.
Then you have allowed the real definition of "Atheist" become altered in your head. Re-read your dictionary...people that try to force their beliefs on other people already have a perfectly good name: Douchbags.
If you're hiring people that work for you because they "enjoy working for you" then you've hired a bunch of liars. I work because I want to get paid, because I have bills. I don't work to make friends. I don't work to have social hour. I work because it pays money - I have enough "fun" fixing my family computers for free.
And of course, the spelling and grammar nazi has made an error in his post!
First, it wasn't a grammar or spelling error, it was a typo, and the kind of typo a spell checker won't catch. Second, he's not applying for a job, he's educating you aliterate kids. Someone who's not stupid will take a lot more care with a job application or resume than a slashdot comment.
That just goes to show how much you vastly underestimate the importance of Slashdot comments. FFS, if you're not careful the NSA will assume you went to public school.
Well, I can maybe help you with some of your hiring practices - as an experienced IT guy who's been out of work a few times over the last few years, and have been looking to better my situation for a lot longer, I might be able to tell you why qualified applicants aren't applying.
First: Are you putting a ballpark salary in the advertisement, or is it some nonanswer like "DOE" or "Market" or "Going Rate"? Because all three of those have prevent me from submitting my resume in the past, as I'm assuming that you're just going to rape me on my paycheck. Oh, you mean I need to get a phone interview (during my workday), I need to take a day off for a face to face, and then IF I'm able to impress you enough you'll tell me that the most you'll pay me is 2/3 of going rate (but I'll get a raise in six months! pinky swear!)
Second (and speaking of pay anyway): Are you actually giving market value to your IT guy or are you underpaying him/her by 20% like most of the rest of the world? When someone is hiring me to do server work, helpdesk work, database work, managing a phone system, running backups, handling rebuilds and break/fix requests they'd better be paying more than $17/hr.
Something that companies don't seem to realize: *good* IT guys (and no, I'm not cocky enough to think that I necessarily belong to that group) are also really good at research - they HAVE to be to do their job. When I find a job opportunity one of the first things that I do is check online for the salary that I can expect to get. If that's too low, I don't apply. If I'm finding the advert somewhere like Dice or Monster, that has the ability to parse my already written resume and I'm redirected to a site that forces me to [i]manually re-enter all of my fucking information[/i] I'm also disinclined to apply for the position, [b]especially[/b] if the rate of pay is nowhere to be found. The third thing that I check is the climate of the company - do they have a lot of turnover? Are there reviews online with Glassdoor or somewhere else that can let me know *why* there's a high turnover (after all, there may be legitimate reasons...or it could be because your company has no idea how to hire competent managers)
Now, that third step is optional - if I'm unemployed and looking, that third step is nonexistent (I'd rather work *anywhere* than be unemployed. I can continue looking after getting hired, after all), but if it's a shitty company that treats its IT department like crap, you can bet your ass that two weeks after hiring me I'll be continuing to look for work. In six months I just might be out the door.
Some might be saying that I'm shooting myself in the foot by being so stubborn about this shit, but honestly, how much of my time do you need to waste just to determine whether I'm a potential fit for your company? Do you really want your time wasted by a technician that you can't afford? Do you really want to squash those excellent IT guys that just simply don't have time (by dint of being overworked and on call all of the fucking time) by making them reinvent the wheel (by manually having to enter in a resume that likely took at least a few hours to put together in the first place)? If you said yes to any of those questions then you're like most of the other companies on the planet and I've answered your question.
There's another issue that I'll mention here, although it hasn't prevented me from applying at very many jobs: Let your IT department draft the Job Posting. Having your HR department try to grok the difference between Windows and Office is painful enough, but when you have them just throwing down any buzzword that they've heard in the last two weeks you're really not going to get a very good caliber of employee.
Give them a couple of weeks. They'll start pulling the same shady shit that the credit card companies pulled - changing late fees and late dates without notice, etc. Remember: These are the assholes responsible for the mortgage collapse...they'll close their doors before they cover the costs, and since nobody gets a paycheck without their help there's not a whole hell of a lot that anyone can do about it.
Are you retarded? For the same reason that people "accept" paying their own Government to spy on them. For the same reason that we "accept" a boss that lies cheats and steals but will fire you for returning from lunch 3 minutes late. For the same reason that we "accept" gas prices. It's because it's that or nothing, and we'd rather have something.
Slashdot Mirror
(The one Biker who knows what Glass is couldn't make it out if his mother's basement because he's too hammered)
I have never met a bigot that I thought was encumbered by too much intelligence. I'm glad to see that my own bias' against retards that equate appearance (or hobby) to IQ hasn't been scuffed.
Agreed. Honestly, AFAIC if you're contributing to the conversation, even a little, there's no reason not to post your own links to your own site(s). It's the "posting just to advertise" that people hate.
playing games with the definition to avoid technically having declared war by action on every nation on earth?
Why not? It's been pretty effective so far.
That's kinda hard to do once the genie is out of the bottle and facts are on the ground. Take gay military service: sure, the next president is free to kick gays out of the military again, since Obama's weak-sauce "repeal" had no anti-discrimination language.
But the next president will have to work against a 4 year long record of gay service.
No, the next president will have to work against 20 years of recorded gay service. Bill Clinton enacted "don't ask, don't tell" back in the early 90's as a way to allow homosexuals to serve. After 20 years, and considering that the US Military has been complaining about the low IQ's of recent grads, they'll continue to accept anyone that'll do the job.
Weed is a different issue entirely. So far, we've had 8 years of Obama (more or less) not prosecuting, true enough, but we've also watched him flip flop on that very same topic at least twice. During his initial campaign he implied that he would push to legalize weed...as soon as he was in office he claimed that he just wanted to maintain the status quo. During his second election it didn't come up, but there have been quite a few petitions at Whitehouse.gov about it and so far the only official response from the WhiteHouse is that they "trust in the science that they already have", which means that they trust in the propaganda that was spouted in the 30's.
His decision to not prosecute patients (and to not prosecute Washington/Colorado residents) is totally at his discretion. When the Republicans are back in the white house (which I totally expect considering how poorly Obama has done), weed doesn't have a chance.
President Jeb Bush could also go back to persecuting marijuana users, but would still have to work against the fact on the ground that marijuana isn't a dangerous drug.
It's not about saving lives, it's about filling prisons. If it were about saving lives booze would be classified at a much higher risk than weed.
Setec Astronomy
While I agree with the sentiment, I'm really glad that the Internet didn't go in this direction to begin with. Why? Well, it doesn't matter how much I'm paying for security if the NSA (or whoever else in the Government feels like taking a peek) can still read all of my shit.
Either that or they'd just merge the accounts...I've had this happen before I *think* with Google, but not certain. Regardless, they are under no obligation to remove your content...really the only decision that YOU get to make is whether or not you log in.
In an effort to continue arguing with everyone I have stumbled across the following:
As do the Post Office departments in many countries, the United States Postal Service has a legal monopoly on delivery of non-overnight letters.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_monopoly (yeah, not the best but good enough for me).
Soooo....I'm afraid that I must admit defeat or else become a Government employee. Since they aren't fans of pot smokers, I will tuck my tail between my legs and shamefully exit this thread :p
I was arguing that the USPS isn't a monopoly because 1) there are other businesses that provide the same service and 2) other businesses CAN provide the same service. If they don't, that's not the fault of the USPS. The USPS has no exclusivity for taking a letter from point A and taking it to point B...what they do have is a lot more Government oversight that prevents them from competing on the same level as the actual businesses that could provide the service. I do agree with you that the category of service is always changing and that nailing anything down according to those definitions is pretty point. The other side of my correction was that you stated they could "charge whatever they want", which is also completely false. If they could charge whatever they wanted they would not be having the financial problems that they've been having for the last 20 years. That's all - no more, no less. But since this entire discussion seems to be about a difference in opinion as to the definition of "monopoly", we can take a look at that:
monopoly
noun: monopoly;plural noun: monopolies;noun: Monopoly
1.
the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.
"his likely motive was to protect his regional monopoly on furs"
Can we at least agree that what they are providing is a service as opposed to a commodity? Good.
As a SERVICE, what is it that the US Government provides to the USPS that is a barrier for entry for any other entity? From the definition, I don't see any barrier to entry...anyone with the drive and desire to provide a better service than the USPS is welcome to do so.
Are you trying to say “Monopolies” are a synonym for “Bloodthirsty pirates who are only interested in booty?” because that is not what monopoly means. There are a lot of monopolies out there that lose money.
No, actually, I was correcting you where you were wrong. Namely when you said "The USPS has a monopoly on letter delivery" - which is demonstrably false. You can send your letters via FedEx and UPS if you like. Also "and can charge whatever price they want", which is also demonstrably false since the USPS has to petition Congress in order to raise rates. I could have corrected you on this: "In areas where they don’t have a monopoly – like next day mail – they have to charge a lower “competitive” price to match FedEx, et. al." but figured I didn't need to bother...stamps cost the same price, regardless of what city/state in the US you're in.
Now, if you're talking specifically about "special pricing" for major companies, I know that this has historically been the case. Sears and Monky Wards catalogs, for example, used to cost the USPS an absolute fortune in shipping due to mass and weight. IIRC there were "special prices" for them because they were driving the economy - essentially, Government blessed. I don't see how the Netflix (or GameSpy) models are relevant in regards to that, as the circumstances as well as the difficulties in shipping are vastly different...apples to oranges. Did Netflix get special pricing? I don't know, but IIRC the last time the USPS was in front of Congress asking for money they had stated that one of the only reasons they were even able to CONTINUE doing their work was because of the amount of money they were getting from DVD rental services. I could be wrong on some of these points though - memory is a funny thing...
Case in point, USPS. In exchange for a monopoly they are heavily regulated. I am a free marketer and I think the USPS service does a decent job for the money. There are a lot of other cases out there like that.
I'm not sure what point you're actually trying to make here, but if you read the last paragraph of my last post you'll see that I agree with you on this point.
Reading the summary, but not the article, I got the impression it would be less. The USPS has a monopoly on letter delivery and can charge whatever price they want. In areas where they don’t have a monopoly – like next day mail – they have to charge a lower “competitive” price to match FedEx, et. al.
If this were even remotely true then the USPS going bankrupt a few years back is bullshit. Since they were in fact going bankrupt and since they had to get Congressional approval to raise their rates, I would say that calling them a "monopoly" is disingenuous at best. Their prices are fixed, their costs are not. They have an expectation to provide a service at a rate that is significantly lower than FedEx or UPS - this is what has been causing them so much grief in recent years. UPS and FedEx are making money hand over fist and still are able to come close to the price of USPS with far better service. If the USPS raises their rates, they lose even more money.
I'm no supporter of Government programs by and large, but the USPS is one of the most well designed Government programs in existence. If only we could have maintained that standard with literally ALL of the other Government programs, we wouldn't (as a country) be broke right now.
Been getting around 5 disks from Netflix a month for a few years (sometimes more, sometimes less - their streaming service makes it so that the DVD service isn't as critical for me). During that time I've gotten 1 broken disk - had a crack from the edge almost to the center. I returned it, notified Netflix on their site, and was sent an extra disk from my queue in compensation while they rushed me a new copy of the broken disk.
There have been a few times when I've gotten a disk that was badly scratched...but only a couple, definitely well under the 1% mark.
As far as the "gunk"...yeah, I've gotten disks with jelly on them and other things, but again, not frequently. Maybe 1 out of 20 disks? Not terrible IMO considering the volume of disks that they're supposed to process every day.
Nice merger of reality & Diskworld...if I had mod points I'd do more than commend you, but as it stands you're stuck with some photons on a screen.
To distract the rest of the world from our spying programs.
I wish I could figure out why all of the most staunch supporters of our Freedoms are all anonymous. Might it be because they are cowards, and that cowards are really REALLY good at leading from behind?
I'll say the same thing I ALWAYS say when one of you nutjobs decides to tell us all how to reclaim our Freedoms: You first. I will stand BESIDE the second batch of revolutionaries should our brethren actually decide to climb up off of their asses and fight for what they claim they want to fight for, but until that moment I am a Revolution of One, and I don't much care for those odds.
So by all means - stand up and do what you already know you should be doing. I'm right behind you.
The feds will flipflop on this as soon as Obama is out of office. Right now he's trying to save face and this is a really easy way for him to do it without having to spend more money. As soon as the new boss buys his way into office it'll be his (or hers, but really it'll be his) discretion to prosecute users in those states.
I hate getting into definitions - Agnostic, Athiest, Theist, and all the middle crap is annoying. That said: I'm very annoyed by true Athiests and here's why.
...waiting with baited breath...
In my mind, the true Athiests are the ones who don't believe in god and mock and attack anyone who says otherwise.
Then perhaps your mind should read a dictionary?
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist"
I don't see anywhere there that requires preaching or coercion, which tells me that you're pissed off at Atheists because you want to use your own definition of "Atheist". That's like being pissed off at catfish because of all of their fur and incessant barking.
These people are on the exact same level as the theists who believe in god and attack and mock anyone who says otherwise.
Some are, yes, but that's like equating WBC with Christianity. (neither of which I support, I'm just illustrating a similar comparison)
This is why I equate Atheism with Theism.
Well, as long as you realize that you equating one with the other makes you "wrong". Words have definitions, dictionaries enumerate them. If you don't like the definition then act to get it changed, but you don't suddenly get to decide for the rest of the world what words mean.
The truth is, it's not religion or lack thereof that's the problem. It's the people who feel the need to jam their opinion on the subject down other peoples throats.
I agree, despite your hypocrisy.
This is the true reason that Athiests believe religion is the source of all evil, and it's the real reason Theists roll their eyes at athiest arguments on the matter: they're throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Based on the content I assume that you're not an Atheist, yet you'll deem to speak for us? Let me simplify this for you. I can't speak for all Atheists, obviously, but I can speak for myself.
Why do I believe that religion is "evil"? It's because spiritual leaders rely on various forms of deception to identify the "truth", even if (as you did above) it means re-defining words to mean what they WANT them to mean. In a nutshell: I respect honesty too much to be a supporter of religion. Find me an honest religion and then we can talk about my potential conversion from Atheism.
That said, the regular old Athiests - just like the regular old Theists and regular old Agnostics - are in no way a problem. These are the people who have their own opinion and allow others to have a separate opinion.
Then you have allowed the real definition of "Atheist" become altered in your head. Re-read your dictionary...people that try to force their beliefs on other people already have a perfectly good name: Douchbags.
So it's only a crime if you're psychic?
That's the advanced course :p
If you're hiring people that work for you because they "enjoy working for you" then you've hired a bunch of liars. I work because I want to get paid, because I have bills. I don't work to make friends. I don't work to have social hour. I work because it pays money - I have enough "fun" fixing my family computers for free.
And of course, the spelling and grammar nazi has made an error in his post!
First, it wasn't a grammar or spelling error, it was a typo, and the kind of typo a spell checker won't catch. Second, he's not applying for a job, he's educating you aliterate kids. Someone who's not stupid will take a lot more care with a job application or resume than a slashdot comment.
That just goes to show how much you vastly underestimate the importance of Slashdot comments. FFS, if you're not careful the NSA will assume you went to public school.
Well, I can maybe help you with some of your hiring practices - as an experienced IT guy who's been out of work a few times over the last few years, and have been looking to better my situation for a lot longer, I might be able to tell you why qualified applicants aren't applying.
First: Are you putting a ballpark salary in the advertisement, or is it some nonanswer like "DOE" or "Market" or "Going Rate"? Because all three of those have prevent me from submitting my resume in the past, as I'm assuming that you're just going to rape me on my paycheck. Oh, you mean I need to get a phone interview (during my workday), I need to take a day off for a face to face, and then IF I'm able to impress you enough you'll tell me that the most you'll pay me is 2/3 of going rate (but I'll get a raise in six months! pinky swear!)
Second (and speaking of pay anyway): Are you actually giving market value to your IT guy or are you underpaying him/her by 20% like most of the rest of the world? When someone is hiring me to do server work, helpdesk work, database work, managing a phone system, running backups, handling rebuilds and break/fix requests they'd better be paying more than $17/hr.
Something that companies don't seem to realize: *good* IT guys (and no, I'm not cocky enough to think that I necessarily belong to that group) are also really good at research - they HAVE to be to do their job. When I find a job opportunity one of the first things that I do is check online for the salary that I can expect to get. If that's too low, I don't apply. If I'm finding the advert somewhere like Dice or Monster, that has the ability to parse my already written resume and I'm redirected to a site that forces me to [i]manually re-enter all of my fucking information[/i] I'm also disinclined to apply for the position, [b]especially[/b] if the rate of pay is nowhere to be found. The third thing that I check is the climate of the company - do they have a lot of turnover? Are there reviews online with Glassdoor or somewhere else that can let me know *why* there's a high turnover (after all, there may be legitimate reasons...or it could be because your company has no idea how to hire competent managers)
Now, that third step is optional - if I'm unemployed and looking, that third step is nonexistent (I'd rather work *anywhere* than be unemployed. I can continue looking after getting hired, after all), but if it's a shitty company that treats its IT department like crap, you can bet your ass that two weeks after hiring me I'll be continuing to look for work. In six months I just might be out the door.
Some might be saying that I'm shooting myself in the foot by being so stubborn about this shit, but honestly, how much of my time do you need to waste just to determine whether I'm a potential fit for your company? Do you really want your time wasted by a technician that you can't afford? Do you really want to squash those excellent IT guys that just simply don't have time (by dint of being overworked and on call all of the fucking time) by making them reinvent the wheel (by manually having to enter in a resume that likely took at least a few hours to put together in the first place)? If you said yes to any of those questions then you're like most of the other companies on the planet and I've answered your question.
There's another issue that I'll mention here, although it hasn't prevented me from applying at very many jobs: Let your IT department draft the Job Posting. Having your HR department try to grok the difference between Windows and Office is painful enough, but when you have them just throwing down any buzzword that they've heard in the last two weeks you're really not going to get a very good caliber of employee.
Give them a couple of weeks. They'll start pulling the same shady shit that the credit card companies pulled - changing late fees and late dates without notice, etc. Remember: These are the assholes responsible for the mortgage collapse...they'll close their doors before they cover the costs, and since nobody gets a paycheck without their help there's not a whole hell of a lot that anyone can do about it.
Are you retarded? For the same reason that people "accept" paying their own Government to spy on them. For the same reason that we "accept" a boss that lies cheats and steals but will fire you for returning from lunch 3 minutes late. For the same reason that we "accept" gas prices. It's because it's that or nothing, and we'd rather have something.
Not sure why this is modded down - seems appropriate and correct to me...